Science of probability

[Alpha and Omega]

(jeffhughes;59974)
No one's answered me this: How do you know that the disciples didn't just write up the story of Jesus so that it fit these "prophecies"?
Would you die for a lie? I know I wouldn't. No one in their right mind would die for a lie. Now would you die for that lie if it meant you would be getting tortured? No? Yes? Well the disciples all died in way of torture. Why? Because they confessed that they knew, ate, touched, saw, lived, witnessed the crucifixion, witnessed the resurrected body of Christ. Because they knew they were not dieing for nothing. That is how we know it wasn't made up.I have a question for you though. If I was to make something like the story of Jesus up back 2000 years ago. Why would I do it? What would it benefit me? Then why would I die for something I made up? Not only die but be tortured for it? Why? What would be the whole point of that?

 

[jeffhughes]

(Follower;60030)
Jesus quoted the first line of it as a message that God is still in control, even when Jesus was on the cross. Psalm 22 asks a question and then provides the answer. But, as a prediction, or as a confirmation of who Jesu is, it still holds value for that. Yes, one line could apply to extra-mean schoolyard bullies tormenting a kid on the playground, but Psalm 22 contains a great many number of details applying to one person. Did the bullies cast lots for the kid's clothing? Did the bullies pierce the hands and feet of their schoolmate? Of course not, so your argument fails. You can't make it fit just about anyone.
You miss what I'm saying. If you say, "Oh, well that's just a metaphor", then it loses all predictive power. The bullies could have stolen the kid's things and divided it amongst themselves. The bullies could have pysically injured the kid in some way. Voila. Lots for garments and pierced hands/feet. At its heart, however, it is the psalm of a suffering person crying out for help. At least, that's what it is if you take it metaphorically. If you want to take it literally, then I want to know why neither David nor Jesus got surrounded by bulls. If you take it literal, it's too specific to apply to anyone. If you take it metaphorically, it's general enough to apply to everyone.And at any rate, with all that said, it still doesn't stop Mark from just writing the story of Jesus' crucifixion to parallel this story.(Follower;60030)
I don't know what God has chosen you for. But, it is God's choice whether he made you for glory or for destruction. Hell isn't punishment. It's destruction.
How loving. Really makes me want to jump up and praise him.(Follower;60030)
You are quibbling with details. You're focusing on dismissing, with speculation, the details one by one while ignoring the big picture. Do you think the Disciples made up the sacrifices? Do you think they destroyed the Temple to end sacrifices? No, you're quibbling about whether being "surrounded by bulls" fits Jesus any more than it fits a victim of schoolyard bullies.
No, of course I don't think the disciples did that. That would be absurd. What I do think is that Christianity is a mish-mash of Judaic metaphors and parallels mixed in with some pagan religious concepts and then carefully honed down into a very "orthodox" view over time. (Follower;60030)
You applied false expectations to a caricature of Christianity while accepting a new pagan faith without significant skepticism. I know you feel that you've been intellectual.
Perhaps you're right, but God hasn't seemed to be helping me out too much, now, has he? The least he could do would be to give me an appearance of Jesus like he used to do so generously to hundreds of people way back in the first century. Why did he stop? If God thought that those people needed to see him in order to believe him, then why did he change his mind?But you're wrong on one count - I've got plenty of skepticism. Maybe not as much as Descartes, but certainly enough to doubt just about everything you can doubt.(Follower;60030)
The Jews of today are not the people who gave us the Old Testament.
Nor are the Christians of today the people who gave us the New Testament. Your point?(Follower;60030)
And, if you accept your own reasoning that he with the most historical experience is the most qualified, then you must reject your conclusion because your facts are wrong. Over the last 2000 years, Christians have spent far more time interpreting the Old Testament than Jews.
Ahh, but the largest growth in Christianity in the early years of its development were Gentiles, who would have just about as much experience at interpreting the Jewish Scriptures as you or I would have interpreting the Qur'an. Perhaps we should ask the Jews of that time period whether Jesus was really the Messiah. But wait - most Jews thought that Christians were crazy. Must have all been an elaborate conspiracy, I suppose...(Follower;60030)
You are also wrong about the Talmud being nothing but a collection of rabbinical interpretations. It is also suppose to contain original scripture from Moses, even though it wasn't written until well after the time of Jesus.
Very well then. I stand corrected. Doesn't really change much, though, as the Jews would say that the Tanakh is still intact.(Follower;60030)
And, you may misunderstand the New Testament. It is a collection of priestly interpretations of the Old Testament, while not claiming to add a single new word from Moses. Although, the New Testament is not exclusively a collection of Old Testament interpretations, it is also the introduction of the Messiah.
Umm....since when is the New Testament a collection of priestly interpretations of anything? The NT was written by an ex-Pharisee, a fisherman, and four anonymous guys, one of which was supposedly a tax collector, another a physician, and yet another a fisherman. The fourth was some young guy who followed Peter around. Where in that group is the priest? I'm not sure I follow you.---------------(Alpha and Omega;60037)
Would you die for a lie? I know I wouldn't. No one in their right mind would die for a lie. Now would you die for that lie if it meant you would be getting tortured? No? Yes? Well the disciples all died in way of torture. Why? Because they confessed that they knew, ate, touched, saw, lived, witnessed the crucifixion, witnessed the resurrected body of Christ. Because they knew they were not dieing for nothing. That is how we know it wasn't made up.
Of course no one would die for a lie. But plenty of people have died for what they believe is the truth. Does dying for something make it the truth? Then what do you say about Islamic suicide bombers? And there were many Mormons who claimed to have personally seen the "Golden Plates" that John Smith talked about. They even signed documents to that effect. But you don't believe them, do you? So why should you believe a bunch of superstitious fishermen whom you can't even interview to see if they were delusional, or psychotic, or simple idiots? There are plenty of made-up things, and plenty of people to believe in them. Doesn't make any of them true. Otherwise, you would be following David Koresh - since, well, they all drank the poisoned Kool-aid, right?(Alpha and Omega;60037)
I have a question for you though. If I was to make something like the story of Jesus up back 2000 years ago. Why would I do it? What would it benefit me? Then why would I die for something I made up? Not only die but be tortured for it? Why? What would be the whole point of that?
I'm not trying to insinuate that people made up the stories like they were writing a novel. I'm saying that in that culture, that's what people did. They made stuff up. Entire complex mythologies of people like Hercules were just invented out of thin air. And people believed them. Historians and other writers routinely made up people's speeches based on what they thought the person would say if they were in the situation. In other words, accuracy was not so important to them. They were working from a largely illiterate culture that relied on oral traditions - and you don't pass on tradition by memorizing large speeches. You get the essence of something, and you pass on the meaning. Even reframing it in a different context is fine, as long as you leave the meaning intact.Do I think the disciples invented Jesus out of thin air? No. Do I believe that they actually walked around with a miracle-working teacher who did and said everything that was in the Gospel accounts? No. But do I believe that these people believed that their new movement was true? Of course.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(jeffhughes;60056)
Of course no one would die for a lie. But plenty of people have died for what they believe is the truth. Does dying for something make it the truth? Then what do you say about Islamic suicide bombers?
Exactly its not a lie. Just like the Islamic suicide bombers believe they are doing something for Allah. Their not lying about it they are telling the truth but are deceived. Now, were the disciples deceived in seeing a resurrected body...well if they never saw Jesus again then we would never have the gospel that is for sure. Thats something you have to decide now that we've established that they are not lying. (jeffhughes;60056)
And there were many Mormons who claimed to have personally seen the "Golden Plates" that John Smith talked about. They even signed documents to that effect. But you don't believe them, do you?
Do you know what a Freemason is? They are devil worshipers...John Smith was a Freemason. I wouldn't take anything he says or created (Mormonism) as truth.

 

[jeffhughes]

(Alpha and Omega;60064)
Exactly its not a lie. Just like the Islamic suicide bombers believe they are doing something for Allah. Their not lying about it they are telling the truth but are deceived. Now, were the disciples deceived in seeing a resurrected body...well if they never saw Jesus again then we would never have the gospel that is for sure. Thats something you have to decide now that we've established that they are not lying.
If I said something about a "lie" back there, then I apologize, because that's not what I meant. I don't believe that the disciples/apostles were "lying" in the sense of the term that they were being deceitful - just that they were mistaken. But you are assuming too much here - we don't know that the disciples saw or even believed in a resurrected body. You are relying on the gospel accounts as accurate historical records, something which begs the question. We don't know whether the disciples "saw" anything, or whether they even claimed to "see" anything, nor whether they even existed. The gospel accounts are the only places where these people are even mentioned. They are also the only places where Jesus is mentioned.Here's the theory that I have heard, and that seems to make a lot of sense. Understand, here, that we have very little information to go on, so there is a great deal of uncertainty about anything that happened in that first century AD. Anyway, Paul's authentic letters never mention "disciples" at all. He talks only about "apostles" - missionaries, in other words. There is only one mention of "the Twelve" in all his authentic letters, which stands out more for the fact that it's the only mention. Because he never used this term anywhere else, it's likely that that was added in later. But at any rate, the theory goes that perhaps during Paul's lifetime, who we know as the "disciples" today were not known as disciples back then. Instead, they were apostles - as were others, such as Paul, who became one. However, after Paul's death, and after the deaths of the apostles, the story became literalized, and these apostles were sort of "inserted" into a more concrete representation of Jesus' life as disciples. It was a way to give credibility to the message.At any rate, I know you will immediately dismiss that, but at least read it over again and ask yourself if that doesn't turn everything you've ever thought about the gospels on its head. If that is, indeed, the truth, then it requires a radical reshifting of how you view Christianity. At any rate, I am not an expert in the subject, but I have been reading various scholars' opinions on the matter (I'm right now working on a book co-written by N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg). The place where I got that theory is from this website - even if you don't agree with it at all, it's at least an interesting, if not long, read. It's at least good to know what the competing viewpoints are, even if you believe they are complete crap.(Alpha and Omega;60064)
Do you know what a Freemason is? They are devil worshipers...John Smith was a Freemason. I wouldn't take anything he says or created (Mormonism) as truth.
Ad hominem. That's equivalent to saying, "Well Newton ate babies, so therefore I wouldn't take his theory of gravitation to be true." But at any rate, whether Mormonism was the truth or not was not the point. The point I made was that there were people who genuinely believed and even signed documents stating that they had seen the Golden Plates. But of course, you don't believe they did. Many of these people were persecuted before Mormonism got onto more stable ground as a belief. But these testimonies and this persecution you take to be false. So what compels me to believe that the disciples' testimonies and the disciples' persecution to be true?

 

[Follower]

(jeffhughes;60056)
If you say, "Oh, well that's just a metaphor", then it loses all predictive power. The bullies could have stolen the kid's things and divided it amongst themselves.
I'm not arbitrarily calling it a metaphor. You don't think the author really intends to say that literal bulls have surrounded him and that they cast lots for his garments? Or, that when he calls himself a worm and not a man, that he thinks he's really a worm? It seems that you arbitrarily dismiss metaphors as meaningless, and that if a passage has metaphorical content that there's nothing literal in the whole thing, at least nothing that can't be arbitrarily decided as literal vs. metaphorical.
And at any rate, with all that said, it still doesn't stop Mark from just writing the story of Jesus' crucifixion to parallel this story.
That's the Apostles lied argument, and then spent the rest of their lives, until they were martyred, enjoying their torment at the hands of the Jews for sticking to their lies. Meanwhile, the Jews and Romans of the day completely failed to record any alternative scenarios or offer any reason to think the Apostles lied. "I'm Pontius Pilate and let me tell you, there was no one named Jesus, King of the Jews, crucified on my watch. Contrary to the rumors." Or, "I'm Josephus, Jesus lived to 80 and died after falling off a donkey." In the Talmud, the Jews boast of having killed Jesus by crucifixion (hanging).
Perhaps you're right, but God hasn't seemed to be helping me out too much, now, has he? The least he could do would be to give me an appearance of Jesus like he used to do so generously to hundreds of people way back in the first century. Why did he stop? If God thought that those people needed to see him in order to believe him, then why did he change his mind?
God didn't think anyone needed to see him. He didn't come to be seen. Jesus came to die and live again, and to tell us why. And, if Jesus did appear to you, you, or at least all your friends, would think you're just delusional. And, I wouldn't want Jesus appearing to you and legitimizing the claims of those who are delusional. Jesus criticized not just Thomas for wanting physical proof but he condemned the wicked for demanding a miraculous sign.Jesus did perform miracles, but only to demonstrate his authority.
Nor are the Christians of today the people who gave us the New Testament. Your point?
Actually, the analogy would be "Christians of today are not the same people who gave us the Old Testament." And, I don't claim they are. I'm disagreeing with the popular belief that today's Jews are the people who wrote the Old Testament.
Ahh, but the largest growth in Christianity in the early years of its development were Gentiles, who would have just about as much experience at interpreting the Jewish Scriptures as you or I would have interpreting the Qur'an. Perhaps we should ask the Jews of that time period whether Jesus was really the Messiah. But wait - most Jews thought that Christians were crazy. Must have all been an elaborate conspiracy, I suppose...
That's better. But, I think a major reason for the hostility directed at Jesus and the Apostles was his success of convincing Jews that he is the Messiah. But, ultimately, I reject this kind of appeal to authority. They didn't reject Jesus because of their expertise with the scriptures. There's no record, outside of the Bible, of those people explaining why Jesus is not the Messiah according to scripture.
Umm....since when is the New Testament a collection of priestly interpretations of anything?
Excuse me, I did take a little liberty there. Christians are a nation of priests and Jesus is our high priest that is superior to the levitical priesthood, so the NT was written by priests. Just not Leviticus priests. I was also drawing a contrast with your reference to "rabbinical Judaism." The authoritative religious leaders of the Israelites were priests, not rabbis.
Of course no one would die for a lie. But plenty of people have died for what they believe is the truth. Does dying for something make it the truth? Then what do you say about Islamic suicide bombers?
We're talking about the credibility of the Apostles. To say they wouldn't die for a lie is to say they believed what they were saying, which contradicts any argument that they were making this up. Islamic suicide bombers believe in what they're dying for. Dieing for something is the powerful demonstration that you believe what you're saying, which is saying a lot if you claim to be a primary source of information. Islamic suicide bombers do not claim to have firsthand knowledge.The authors of the New Testament don't sound like delusional idiots, which would be the other option of the "trilemma".
And there were many Mormons who claimed to have personally seen the "Golden Plates" that John Smith talked about. They even signed documents to that effect. But you don't believe them, do you?... Otherwise, you would be following David Koresh - since, well, they all drank the poisoned Kool-aid, right?
Joseph Smith gained power with his lies. That was his reward. The Apostles gained little in the way of power, at least little compared to their suffering. Joseph Smith didn't die for his beliefs. He died trying to escape from a mob and a jail, even after he prophesied that he would die without resistance (if he hadn't been such a hypocritical coward, he probably would have stayed "safe" in the jail).David Koresh also had great power and "the good life", until the Feds came for him. He didn't die for a lie. He died trying to avoid a lifetime in prison. Koresh and his followers died in fire. It was Jim Jones and his followers who died with poisoned kool aid. Jim Jones also had power and "the good life". Jim Jones also died to avoid a lifetime in prison. Koresh and Jones both committed suicide to avoid suffering because their beliefs were lies. Your examples of Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and Jim Jones all undermine your argument against Jesus because those three demonstrate how liars die, which is completely unlike the deaths of Jesus and the Apostles.
I'm not trying to insinuate that people made up the stories like they were writing a novel. I'm saying that in that culture, that's what people did. They made stuff up. Entire complex mythologies of people like Hercules were just invented out of thin air.
I've never heard of anyone claiming to be an eye witness to Hercules putting up with persecution and ultimately martyrdom. I've never even heard of supposed historical accounts of Hercules.A conspiracy on the level you suspect is incredible.

 

[jeffhughes]

[quote name='Follower;60086]I'm not arbitrarily calling it a metaphor. You don't think the author really intends to say that literal bulls have surrounded him and that they cast lots for his garments? Or' date=' that when he calls himself a worm and not a man, that he thinks he's really a worm? It seems that you arbitrarily dismiss metaphors as meaningless, and that if a passage has metaphorical content that there's nothing literal in the whole thing, at least nothing that can't be arbitrarily decided as literal vs. metaphorical.[/QUOTE']I'm not dismissing metaphors as meaningless, but I'm saying that metaphors destroy any predictive power that the text might have. If a prophecy is also a metaphor, how do you know what's really supposed to happen and what was just the metaphorical description? Thus, metaphors necessarily make the prophecy vague, which means that it can then be applied to more than one situation. If David had written a psalm about how there would be this guy named Jesus who lived in the first century AD and that he would die on a cross, then we would a) know that he was giving a prophecy, and

we would have a specific prediction that could be proven true or false. When we have some vague references to pierced hands and feet, bulls, dogs, and garments, we have nothing linking it to Jesus except an after-the-fact reinterpretation of the passage. What in the passage itself tells you that it is a prophecy? Nothing. It's only after reading the gospels, the writers of which had full access to said "prophecy", that you "see" the fulfillment of it. It's exactly the same as reading Nostradamus to be talking about 9/11, except that we at least know that his words were meant to be prophetic. We don't even have that from David.[quote name='Follower;60086]That's the Apostles lied argument' date=' and then spent the rest of their lives, until they were martyred, enjoying their torment at the hands of the Jews for sticking to their lies.[/QUOTE']No, it's not, because the gospels were not written by the Apostles. Technically, all four gospels are anonymous, so we don't know who wrote them at all. And the majority of scholarship dates Mark, the earliest gospel, to about 70 AD, which is most likely after the "age of the Apostles". So it's not necessarily the Apostles that lied. The religion would have already been somewhat established, at least as a Jewish cult, and then these works were composed. So perhaps the Apostles believed in what they said, and then some random guys from within this cult created gospel accounts to record the traditions going on within their communities. Or perhaps, as some have suggested, Mark was written as an allegory - so it was never meant to be taken completely literally anyway. Then Matthew and Luke came along, took Mark, and literalized it. Voila - you've got yourself a Jesus character without any "lying".[quote name='Follower;60086]Meanwhile' date=' the Jews and Romans of the day completely failed to record any alternative scenarios or offer any reason to think the Apostles lied. "I'm Pontius Pilate and let me tell you, there was no one named Jesus, King of the Jews, crucified on my watch. Contrary to the rumors." Or, "I'm Josephus, Jesus lived to 80 and died after falling off a donkey." In the Talmud, the Jews boast of having killed Jesus by crucifixion (hanging).[/QUOTE']Again, not talking about the Apostles lying. You're right, the Jews and Romans don't get any alternative accounts - they don't mention Jesus at all, except for people like Josephus, who a) was born and wrote after Jesus' supposed lifetime, so he is not a firsthand witness, and

had his texts altered by Christian scribes over the years of copying them. Most likely, the Testimonium Flavianum (the text in Josephus mentioning Jesus) is at least a partial, if not total, forgery. Oh, and the Talmud wasn't developed until the second century, so at best you've got a second- or third-hand witness of Jesus. It gives more testimony to the fact that there were Christians than that there was a Jesus character.[quote name='Follower;60086]God didn't think anyone needed to see him. He didn't come to be seen. Jesus came to die and live again' date=' and to tell us why.[/QUOTE']But he did get seen, did he not? If Jesus wasn't against letting himself be seen by those people, why not anyone today?[quote name='Follower;60086]And' date=' if Jesus did appear to you, you, or at least all your friends, would think you're just delusional.[/QUOTE']Perhaps, but if I specifically asked Jesus to appear, and then he did, I at least would be convinced. Perhaps not my friends, but hey - at least there would be one more (re-)convert. That counts for something, right?[quote name='Follower;60086]And' date=' I wouldn't want Jesus appearing to you and legitimizing the claims of those who are delusional. Jesus criticized not just Thomas for wanting physical proof but he condemned the wicked for demanding a miraculous sign.Jesus did perform miracles, but only to demonstrate his authority.[/QUOTE']This is only because you read the gospels as a single account. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus does condemn the religious leaders for asking for signs from him - to prove that he was God/Messiah. In John, however, Jesus uses his miracles as proof that he was who he says he was - a clearly different approach altogether. So which Gospel are you going by?[quote name='Follower;60086]Actually' date=' the analogy would be "Christians of today are not the same people who gave us the Old Testament." And, I don't claim they are. I'm disagreeing with the popular belief that today's Jews are the people who wrote the Old Testament.[/QUOTE']People believe that today's Jews wrote the Old Testament? How "today" are we talking about here?[quote name='Follower;60086]That's better. But' date=' I think a major reason for the hostility directed at Jesus and the Apostles was his success of convincing Jews that he is the Messiah. But, ultimately, I reject this kind of appeal to authority. They didn't reject Jesus because of their expertise with the scriptures. There's no record, outside of the Bible, of those people explaining why Jesus is not the Messiah according to scripture.[/QUOTE']How do you know why they rejected Jesus? If there's no record of these people stating their views, then how do you know their views? We get a very distorted view of Jews, especially the Pharisees, from the gospels. You're right, there's no record that people paid any attention to Jesus or these Christians at all. They ignored them. Like most people do to a cult.[quote name='Follower;60086]Excuse me' date=' I did take a little liberty there. Christians are a nation of priests and Jesus is our high priest that is superior to the levitical priesthood, so the NT was written by priests. Just not Leviticus priests. I was also drawing a contrast with your reference to "rabbinical Judaism." The authoritative religious leaders of the Israelites were priests, not rabbis.[/QUOTE']Ahh, gotcha. Well, I reject your view that the NT was written by priests, since it already assumes that the NT was true (since that's where you get the notion that we are priests) to begin with. But anyways. Yeah, the authoritative religious leaders were priests, until the Temple was destroyed. Judaism then morphed into a rabbinical, Torah-based religion.[quote name='Follower;60086]We're talking about the credibility of the Apostles. To say they wouldn't die for a lie is to say they believed what they were saying' date=' which contradicts any argument that they were making this up. Islamic suicide bombers believe in what they're dying for. Dieing for something is the powerful demonstration that you believe what you're saying, which is saying a lot if you claim to be a primary source of information. Islamic suicide bombers do not claim to have firsthand knowledge.[/QUOTE']Already dealt with this, so we'll work from what I've said above.[quote name='Follower;60086]The authors of the New Testament don't sound like delusional idiots' date=' which would be the other option of the "trilemma".[/QUOTE']No, not delusional. But mistaken? Perhaps.[quote name='Follower;60086]Joseph Smith gained power with his lies. That was his reward. The Apostles gained little in the way of power' date=' at least little compared to their suffering. Joseph Smith didn't die for his beliefs. He died trying to escape from a mob and a jail, even after he prophesied that he would die without resistance (if he hadn't been such a hypocritical coward, he probably would have stayed "safe" in the jail).[/QUOTE']You don't think the Apostles gained power? They were in charge of a growing new movement. Heck, they even got to decide whether Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could join. I think they had significant power - not on a large, national scale or anything, but over the group of individuals following them.[quote name='Follower;60086]David Koresh also had great power and "the good life"' date=' until the Feds came for him. He didn't die for a lie. He died trying to avoid a lifetime in prison. Koresh and his followers died in fire. It was Jim Jones and his followers who died with poisoned kool aid. Jim Jones also had power and "the good life". Jim Jones also died to avoid a lifetime in prison. Koresh and Jones both committed suicide to avoid suffering because their beliefs were lies.[/QUOTE']Sorry, my mistake. I get my cult leaders confused sometimes

But despite the intentions of Koresh or Jones, you have to remember that their followers did not commit suicide to avoid jailtime. They did it because they sincerely believed, and they were willing to die for their (firsthand) witness of Jones.[quote name='Follower;60086]Your examples of Joseph Smith' date=' David Koresh, and Jim Jones all undermine your argument against Jesus because those three demonstrate how liars die, which is completely unlike the deaths of Jesus and the Apostles.[/QUOTE']We have little evidence to indicate the reasons why Jesus and the Apostles actually died. Martyrdom accounts have a great way of showing how the poor, suffering church was being persecuted but staying strong regardless. It tells us little about how and for what reason the Apostles were actually killed. Maybe they were killed for inciting a riot or disturbing the peace - things that do not directly involve their beliefs, although they may have been seen as doing these things as a result of their evangelizing efforts. In other words, we must be cautious about saying that we know why the early Christians died.[quote name='Follower;60086]I've never heard of anyone claiming to be an eye witness to Hercules putting up with persecution and ultimately martyrdom. I've never even heard of supposed historical accounts of Hercules.[/QUOTE]That wasn't my point. My point was that people made those stories up' date=' and yet they were engrained into the culture to the point where people believed them and passed them on. There are other examples, to be sure, but mythology played a large part of the religious atmosphere of that day.[QUOTE=Follower;60086']A conspiracy on the level you suspect is incredible.[/QUOTE]Not a conspiracy, merely a mistake on our part, assuming that the way they viewed Jesus and religion as a whole back then is the same way we view it today.

 

[Follower]

Today, as in after midnight or sunrise. They are not the people of the race or religion of those who wrote the Old Testament.

How do you know why they rejected Jesus? If there's no record of these people stating their views, then how do you know their views? We get a very distorted view of Jews, especially the Pharisees, from the gospels. You're right, there's no record that people paid any attention to Jesus or these Christians at all. They ignored them. Like most people do to a cult.

The Jews in the New Testament spent a lot of time trying to oppress and refute Christianity. Their efforts tell me why they rejected Jesus. This might be a pro-Christian distortion, but Jews have never produced any scriptural reason to reject Jesus that didn't read like antichrist bigotry. It's not viable that the Jews ignored Christianity. They persecuted the Christians and agitated Rome to persecute Christians. Cults are not ignored today. There exists a great deal of refutation of the beliefs of cults. People do not stand by while something is taught of which they disagree.

Yeah, the authoritative religious leaders were priests, until the Temple was destroyed. Judaism then morphed into a rabbinical, Torah-based religion.

Why do you say that Judaism morphed into rabbinical religion? Why not say that Judaism morphed into Christianity? Rabbinical Talmud-based religion developed after Old Testament religion had already ceased, or morphed into Christianity.

You don't think the Apostles gained power? They were in charge of a growing new movement.

Yes, the Apostles had power over some followers. They also lived in poverty, faced persecution, and eventually died for their beliefs. Weighting the pros and cons, I can't see that they were in it for personal, material benefit.

Sorry, my mistake. I get my cult leaders confused sometimes

But despite the intentions of Koresh or Jones, you have to remember that their followers did not commit suicide to avoid jailtime. They did it because they sincerely believed, and they were willing to die for their (firsthand) witness of Jones.

Again, Koresh and Jones lived "the good life". They had power. They had money. They had their way with many women and girls. No one was persecuting them. And, the moment they faced serious consequences for their deeds, they both commit suicide to escape those consequences. The government came after them for their criminal deeds, not their beliefs. The contrast between frauds like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Joseph Smith ought to really get your attention. When have frauds ever acted like the Apostles? Never that I know of.I'm talking about eye witnesses to the supernatural and primary sources (prophets, Apostles) suffering for their claims, not about others suffering for their beliefs in things others told them. You're right about firsthand followers of Jones (or not, the people who refused to drink where shot, I'd prefer the poison). People die for false prophets. The difference is, the people are fooled. The prophets themselves were not fooled. People die for what they believe, not for what they know is a lie.

Not a conspiracy, merely a mistake on our part, assuming that the way they viewed Jesus and religion as a whole back then is the same way we view it today.

"Doubting" Thomas investigated the wounds of the resurrected Jesus. He lead the typical life of an early Apostle, a tough missionary life followed by being executed in India for his claims. Was he mistaken?

 

[jeffhughes]

But you're ignoring that in the gospels he does these for fundamentally different reasons. In the Synoptic Gospels, he expressly condemns the people for wanting a sign, calling them a "wicked and perverse generation." He essentially gives them the finger as a sign, and nothing else. In John, he goes around specifically doing miracles to prove that he is who he says he is. It's a completely different attitude. One does not go around and say, "I'm not going to give you a sign to show that I am who I say I am, but I'm going to give you a sign to show that I am who I say I am!" That's called multiple personality disorder...

Well I doubt anyone believes that the Jews that are alive today are the ones that wrote the Old Testament, that's why I asked. As for whether they are the same race/religion, I think that there are distinct lines that can be traced back in terms of religion and race, but whether you want to say they are "completely different" or just "changed" is a matter of semantics.

It's not viable that the Jews ignored Christianity. They persecuted the Christians and agitated Rome to persecute Christians. Cults are not ignored today. There exists a great deal of refutation of the beliefs of cults. People do not stand by while something is taught of which they disagree.

Refuting a cult's beliefs' date=' and persecuting a cult are two completely different things. Certainly, people don't ignore cults completely. Let's go back to Jehovah's Witnesses. Plenty of people have written up about why they are wrong, etc. But how often do their places of worship get bombed, their houses get vandalized and set on fire, their members killed or tortured? Certainly it must happen, but we don't hear about it often. For the most part, we tolerate them, although we believe they are wrong. This pluralistic attitude was also present in the Roman Empire.

Why do you say that Judaism morphed into rabbinical religion? Why not say that Judaism morphed into Christianity? Rabbinical Talmud-based religion developed after Old Testament religion had already ceased, or morphed into Christianity.

Christianity was an off-shoot of Judaism that principally grew in Gentile cities during its first years. rabbinical Judaism was a direct change to the Judaic faith that happened primarily as a result of the destruction of the Temple. As the Jews were devastated because of this event, they searched for some way to continue on living the faith that they had. Judaism, therefore, morphed into a rabbinical tradition rather than the Temple-based one that it had been before. The reason the "Old Testament religion" had ceased was because they couldn't do animal sacrifice without the Temple.

I am not entirely sure about Koresh, but I know that while Jones had money, he did not use it. He lived out in the jungle, for goodness sakes! His motivation was not monetary gain, but rather the power that comes with being able to control those who follow him. And what's more, the best cult leaders are the ones that believe what they tell others. They didn't commit suicide to escape consequences, they did so because they believed that the United States was the embodiment of evil, and that in order to escape said evil, they had to escape from this life. Yes, the government came after them for criminal deeds, but they did not see it that way. They saw it as persecution.

"Doubting" Thomas investigated the wounds of the resurrected Jesus. He lead the typical life of an early Apostle' date=' a tough missionary life followed by being executed in India for his claims. Was he mistaken?[/QUOTE']The story of doubting Thomas is likely a later Christian addition rather than an actual event. Mark does not mention it at all, Luke (if I remember correctly....sorry, I'm not at home to check) has a simple story about Thomas, and then John, the latest gospel to be written, has a more complex story that shows evidence of legendary development. It was likely added as a way to give extra "proof" of Jesus' resurrection, as well as to give people a reason to believe instead of doubting the story (specific blessings for those who believe without seeing).

 

[Follower]

(jeffhughes;60199)
I'm not saying that he needs to remove the obvious metaphors. But the presence of metaphors seems to indicate that this was not meant to be a prophecy at all.
A band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. Yeah, I can see how when those "evil men" are made into metaphorical beasts how these words become so meaningless as to applicable to just about anyone, like kids on a school playground. As you said, "If you take it as a metaphor, I guess it can apply to [Jesus]. But it can also apply then to anyone who is suffering, so you've destroyed its power as a prophecy. If bulls can be enemies, then a little teenager at school can see that as his bullies."
You answered your own question above. You are already assuming that Jesus is a miracle-working, prophetic Messiah, and you are assuming the truth of the gospel accounts, before you even look at them. The presence of Jesus' "prophecies" are almost certainly an attempt to make him look like he knew what he was talking about.
I'm not assuming that Jesus performed miracles. Remember, you were saying that the NT was written after 70AD and I was pointing out how absurd that is. For the books of the NT to leave out the destruction of the Temple would be like a collection of books on terrorism to discuss the Twin Towers without mentioning 9/11. To Jews and Christians, the destruction of the Temple is more significant than 9/11 to America! (BTW, Paul who wrote a big chuck of the NT, wrote to established churches, and he died before 70AD.)You argument would have to be that there is a huge conspiracy by the early Christians to avoid not only manufacturing Jesus's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, but to refrain from the instant gratification of gloating over the fulfillment of that prophesy. To you, the authors of the Gospels are master con-men. You further argue that the Jews just ignored Christians. Those underground churches that archaeologists have dug up are just because the Christians liked to meet in holes in the ground, not because anyone was bothering them. The Talmud's anti-Christian vitriol which contains condemnations of Jesus and gloating over Jews killing Jesus doesn't imply any sort of hostility the Jews would have had over a growing blasphemous cult. And, of course, the records of the various saints being murdered for their beliefs is all fabricated, with the accused culprits never so much as lifting a finger to say it's not true.
I certainly would be convinced.
The majesty of the universe doesn't convince you, but a psychotic episode would convince you of what is written in the Bible?
Refuting a cult's beliefs, and persecuting a cult are two completely different things. Certainly, people don't ignore cults completely. Let's go back to Jehovah's Witnesses. Plenty of people have written up about why they are wrong, etc. But how often do their places of worship get bombed, their houses get vandalized and set on fire, their members killed or tortured?
Yeah, if a cult doesn't get fire bombed in self-loathing, liberal America, it sure isn't going to get fire-bombed in a theocratic culture controlled by primitive religious zealots. And, anyone who makes claims to the contrary is a liar, or just amazingly mistaken.
I am not entirely sure about Koresh, but I know that while Jones had money, he did not use it. He lived out in the jungle, for goodness sakes!
Jim Jones decided to build his own Socialist Paradise where he would have all the wealth and a lot of concubines. I can see how you think he was keeping the faith in the face of persecution, even though you don't think cults ever face more than a few exposés (which the Jews forgot to write in the days of the early Christian cult).
They didn't commit suicide to escape consequences, they did so because they believed that the United States was the embodiment of evil, and that in order to escape said evil, they had to escape from this life.
Yeah, how noble of Jim Jones to kill himself, and murder his followers, to escape trial and life in prison, if not execution. Yeah, a real lying coward would have done as the Apostle Paul and continued to preach from prison, only ending when the government kills him. Oh wait, Paul couldn't have been in prison and his death must have been fabricated by Christians.Not only do I disagree with you, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take your statements seriously.

 

[jeffhughes]

(Follower;60302)
A band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. Yeah, I can see how when those "evil men" are made into metaphorical beasts how these words become so meaningless as to applicable to just about anyone, like kids on a school playground. As you said, "If you take it as a metaphor, I guess it can apply to [Jesus]. But it can also apply then to anyone who is suffering, so you've destroyed its power as a prophecy. If bulls can be enemies, then a little teenager at school can see that as his bullies."
Fine. Okay. You win on this point. I will concede that we can say that the bulls are metaphor, but the band of evil men, and the casting lots, etc. are all literal.But you need to show me two things: a) why we should take this as a prophecy at all, instead of what it appears to be - a psalm about a suffering man, and

how you know that Mark didn't just creatively squeeze in these details about Jesus to make him fit this supposed "prophecy".(Follower;60302)
I'm not assuming that Jesus performed miracles. Remember, you were saying that the NT was written after 70AD and I was pointing out how absurd that is. For the books of the NT to leave out the destruction of the Temple would be like a collection of books on terrorism to discuss the Twin Towers without mentioning 9/11. To Jews and Christians, the destruction of the Temple is more significant than 9/11 to America! (BTW, Paul who wrote a big chuck of the NT, wrote to established churches, and he died before 70AD.)
So when Jesus tells people to look at the Temple and then says that "not one stone will be left on top of another", this is not a reference to the destruction of the temple? Oh wait, no it's just a prophecy. Okay, so here we go, let's examine this. The gospels were (obviously) either written before or after 70 AD. If they were written before this time, then Jesus spoke prophecies. If they were written after, it was likely a Christian interpolation, making it look like Jesus predicted such an event. It could still possibly be the case that he gave a prophecy, but we wouldn't know without further information. And where do we find said further information? Well, as you mentioned, Paul lived and died before 70 AD, and none of his writings mention anything about the Temple at all. He never indicates that there was a rumour going around that Jesus had made a prediction of the destruction of the Temple, and so it was to be expected. Certainly this does not prove anything, but it certainly doesn't disprove any theory. At best, we can only shrug our shoulders on this issue and say, "I dunno." But in the absence of any other evidence, it seems more reasonable to assume that people wrote these predictions in, rather than a person having a supernatural ability to predict the future.Oh, and my view is at least consistent with the majority of biblical scholarship on the issue. Doesn't make it right, but it at least makes it more reasonable to believe.(Follower;60302)
You argument would have to be that there is a huge conspiracy by the early Christians to avoid not only manufacturing Jesus's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, but to refrain from the instant gratification of gloating over the fulfillment of that prophesy. To you, the authors of the Gospels are master con-men.
It did not have to be a conspiracy, nor "huge" either. Legends grow with the telling, and in the pluralistic society that was the Roman empire, religions often "competed" with each other, trying to "outdo" each other. "Yeah, well my Jesus can beat up your Mithras." If you are already convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, what difference does it make to a person with no written authority to fact-check whether you add in a story about him predicting the Temple? As I mentioned earlier, people in that day and age often just made stuff up. Seriously. This is a notable fact about that day and age, and it's why even noted historians of the time period are still taken with a grain of salt. People made up whole speeches that they thought the person would be "likely to say". That's how you get historians writing down supposed "word for word" accounts of what someone said...100 years earlier. There was no way for them to know, but they made it up anyway.The reason you view this theory that I'm presenting as a "conspiracy" is because you are interjecting your modern mindset into their situation. People were more concerned about "truth" than "fact", if you understand what I'm saying. In their day and age, if you had a great figure that you wanted to talk about, you started telling stories about how grand they were - and yes, sometimes those stories were just made up. Or passed on from earlier people who had gotten it from earlier people, etc. It's just the way things were done back then. The problem is that we go and look at the gospel accounts from our modern, literate, post-printing-press mindset and interpret them as being a play-by-play narrative of Jesus's life.(Follower;60302)
You further argue that the Jews just ignored Christians. Those underground churches that archaeologists have dug up are just because the Christians liked to meet in holes in the ground, not because anyone was bothering them. The Talmud's anti-Christian vitriol which contains condemnations of Jesus and gloating over Jews killing Jesus doesn't imply any sort of hostility the Jews would have had over a growing blasphemous cult.
You know what, as this is not my area of expertise, I will concede this point, alright? Will that make you happy?

Either way, the existence of persecution does not make a belief true. I hope you at least agree with that statement.(Follower;60302)
And, of course, the records of the various saints being murdered for their beliefs is all fabricated, with the accused culprits never so much as lifting a finger to say it's not true.
Again, I'll concede it, but with a note that we must be careful not to assume that the "accused culprits" never did lift a finger as you say. Christianity has burned much of the "heretical" material over the years that we might find useful to give a less biased opinion of these matters. It's quite possible that the Jews did vehemently deny it, but their work was burned. But either way, as I said, persecution does not imply truth.(Follower;60302)
The majesty of the universe doesn't convince you, but a psychotic episode would convince you of what is written in the Bible?
Majesty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as Jesus appearing to me, you seem to automatically assume that it's a psychotic episode yourself. Wouldn't a Christian, whose entire faith is based on a series of appearances to the disciples as well as Paul, be more trusting of such experiences? But as for me, as I mentioned, I've never had such an experience. If it were to suddenly happen, it would be much more convincing, and even more so if I had just prayed a prayer asking for him to appear to me. True, I would not be able to know for sure - but that is the standard that I have set for myself. I work upon reasonable certainty, and I am telling you that yes, if I had such an experience, I would, at the very least, be seriously reconsidering the conclusions I've reached. If not re-converting on the spot.(Follower;60302)
Yeah, if a cult doesn't get fire bombed in self-loathing, liberal America, it sure isn't going to get fire-bombed in a theocratic culture controlled by primitive religious zealots. And, anyone who makes claims to the contrary is a liar, or just amazingly mistaken.
It's important to remember that Palestine was not a "theocratic culture controlled by primitive religious zealots." There were certainly areas of Palestine that were more religiously charged than others, but on the whole, it operated much like the rest of the Roman empire did - pluralistically. There were many cities in Palestine that were built by the Romans, and they were generally very tolerant of religions. There were large populations of Jews living outside of Palestine as well, and they were tolerated out there, too. And Rome tended to keep a pretty tight lid on zealots and rebels - they were free to believe whatever they wanted, as long as they didn't try to upset the peace or topple the government. That's when they were viciously brought to their knees. The empire was very much a place of "don't step on my toes, and I won't step on yours."(Follower;60302)
Jim Jones decided to build his own Socialist Paradise where he would have all the wealth and a lot of concubines. I can see how you think he was keeping the faith in the face of persecution, even though you don't think cults ever face more than a few exposés (which the Jews forgot to write in the days of the early Christian cult).
Let's try to cut the sarcasm, out, shall we? Despite the fact that we certainly don't agree, I think that we should still be able to have a civil and reasonable discussion. As for cult leaders, I can't stress enough that the best cult leaders are the ones that are themselves deluded. They have a higher rate of experiences which they take as "religious" - visions, dreams, hallucinations, voices, whatever - and then they try to make sense of it. When this is combined with charisma and charm, you've got yourself prime cult leader material. And along with that, the principal way to help a cult grow in cohesiveness is to claim that they are being persecuted. Then, when you start breaking the laws (by sexually abusing people, defrauding people of their money, or whatever), it simply confirms your suspicions. The persecution is getting worse! And the group rallies together for support.I understand that Jones took on concubines and wealth, but I don't see his motivations as "Man, I really want to get rich and sleep around. I'm going to start a cult." People who do that become con-men, not cult leaders. The biggest difference is their belief - do they believe what they're saying is true? And this is where we can make the distinction - a con-men would likely not die for their beliefs. A cult leader probably would. This isn't an absolute statement, for sure, but I think it works as a general rule.(Follower;60302)
Yeah, how noble of Jim Jones to kill himself, and murder his followers, to escape trial and life in prison, if not execution. Yeah, a real lying coward would have done as the Apostle Paul and continued to preach from prison, only ending when the government kills him. Oh wait, Paul couldn't have been in prison and his death must have been fabricated by Christians.
You're absolutely right - Paul is still alive and living in Oklahoma. I just saw him at a gas station the other day

Haha but seriously, I think you're automatically assuming that cult leaders are looking to rip people off. If we go by the definitions I gave above, I would say that some con-men become cult leaders to do so, but generally they would attempt at some point to make away with the money. Jim Jones moved into a jungle, and while he amassed quite a fortune, he was still living in a jungle. He wasn't using said funds for his own personal benefit, or he'd be living in a palace somewhere drinking champagne. I think it's safe to say that this was not his motivation. What is more likely is that he was not entirely right in the head, as confirmed by his brother (if I remember correctly), who said that later on, he started to develop paranoid tendencies, likely indicative of schizophrenic delusions.(Follower;60302)
Not only do I disagree with you, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take your statements seriously.
Well, try your best then. As well, keep in mind that I am not preaching this stuff as absolute truth, but rather as plausible theories that deserve attention. If there are reasonable reasons to reject them, then that's fine - we can throw them out. However, much of what I am saying, particularly about the conditions of the time period, is backed up by biblical scholarship, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with them.